Lance Armstrong, is the truth about to out ?

xox Godders xox

And not forgetting the positive test for corticoids.

www.cyclingnews.presents ...

johntheexpat

But it wasn't positive, by their own definition.  He turned in a result of 0.2 and the threshold is 6, which is 30 times higher.

Its a readily available OTC medicine used for rashes and sores.   I have no idea about the protocols used to test for the substance, how you would generate false positives etc etc etc. or why they start talking about the testosterone/epitestosterone.  But as he was 1/30th of the allowable limit, he didn't fail a drugs test.

The article isn't at all scientific (or correct in its reporting of the results) as it goes on to describe another rider

You detect it at a certain level (say microgrammes per mL)  or you give a ratio with something else.  You can't detect something with a ratio of 7.  Unless they mean the cortivazol was detected along with a testosterone/epitestosterone ratio of 7.

If anyone has a link to the testing protocols and methodoligies, preferably in laymans terms, that would be interesting.  In a geeky sort of way

icstm

So do we know if any of this B samples are currently availiable and testing  ve?
Are any of his A samples still around (I think not).

So this case is built on witness statements not drug testing.
That does not mean he did not do it, but there is no bullet or wound, let alone smoking gun with prints.

xox Godders xox

You are correct. The reason it was contentious was because he declared not to have used any drugs (legal or otherwise) and then the substance was detected. He later said it was a cream he'd used for saddle sores or something.

The threshold is there for use on the assumption that a rider is taking something prescribed for non-performance enhancing reasons. So if someone declares no drug use whatsoever and then the substance is detected then it's suspicious (even if it's below the threshold).

You are right though, to say he failed the test is an overstatement and if it wasn't for the vast amount of additional evidence I probably wouldn't hold it against him.

xox Godders xox

The case is built on more than just witness statements. A useful summary in the telegraph:

Lance Armstrong: key excerpts from the USADA doping report - Telegraph

When people take performance enhancing drugs they are working under the assumption that they won't be detectable (and in 99% of cases they are right).

It would be a disaster if anti-doping authorities required positive drugs tests to prove guilt. Clearly there are plenty of other ways, as we're seeing with the Armstrong case.

The Dude

If I had been charged with murder,

If a dozen or more eye witnesses (including friends/colleagues) had seen me commit the murder,

If my bank details showed me paying large sums of money to a notorious underworld arms dealer, at around the same time as the alleged murder..

Regardless of whether or not a body had been found, would anyone be defending me on the basis of 'lack of CCTV evidence'

johntheexpat

So others have been found guilty of doping via non scientific methodologies before now?  I didn't realise that.  Links and/or names would be helpful.

xox Godders xox

Google ?

Ok, I'll get you started (cos I'm a nice guy), I'm sure there are others:

Andrew Wyper- Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Kayle Leogrande- Kayle Leogrande suspended

David Millar- David Millar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (on a side note I would highly recommend Millar's book- Racing through the dark)

Tim Montgomery- Tim Montgomery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michelle Collins- Eight-year ban for US sprinter Michelle Collins | Sport | guardian.co.uk

Also probably worth noting what the WADA code says on evidence required to secure a doping conviction:
(pg 26)

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

The USADA aren't exactly breaking new ground by finding LA guilty without a positive test and nor are they operating outside of the code put in place by the international doping body.

Apsilon

This about sums it up. People are banging on about how the evidence is from witnesses who are former team mates and cyclists with grudges to bear and their own books to sell and who have also been banned, but they are forgetting most of the the evidence is not just from former cyclists.

It is from a multitude of sources from witnesses, statements, bank records, doctors records, fudged official documents, anomalies. This investigation must have been going on for years with the sheer amount of damning evidence released. It has been grim reading and Armstrongs career and reputation is now in tatters. The man is a serial cheat and only the staunchest/deluded LA fanboy can still believe he is innocent.

The only good thing that can come from it is now that cyclings god has been outed as a cheating mortal by the governing body, then no one is safe and hopefully, cycling can be cleaned up from here on with better practice and procedure in testing.

BB3Lions

Still, he beat cancer & won the TDF.